When I was coming out of my agnostic phase, I wrote a article kind of to myself laying out what makes sense about believing in a God. I should see if I could find it and post it so everyone can pick apart my logical flaws.

It's been 3 1/2 years since this thread was active, and there are a ton of new members, and though I have made progress I am still in much the same position, so... bump!

Will you ever reach a satisfying conclusion to your inquiry?

I can empathize. I keep feeling like I can never be sure of Orthodoxy and have all these reservations about it. I've been told both by netodox and realifodox to not join with reservations but I don't want to drag my feet forever. Eventually I'll want to start a family and I can't really do that outside the church. You know?

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

I was agnostic for a long time. I didn't ever really ask why I did or didn't believe. As a young hedonist, God, spirituality, and all those things weren't important categories. After taking an interest in the questions over the past five years or so I have concluded (based on several categories including but not limited to philosophy and personal experience) that I most definitely believe there is more to the universe than its material components. This I find easy to believe in. That being said, I seem unable to believe anything more than this. Years of unanswered prayers, a lack of spiritual experiences, etc. make it difficult to believe God, if He exists, cares about my personal spiritual path. I suppose I am a neo-Platonist, perhaps Aristotelian, deist of some sort at this point, but I always have an ear out if God wants me to take a different path.

I can empathize. I keep feeling like I can never be sure of Orthodoxy and have all these reservations about it. I've been told both by netodox and realifodox to not join with reservations but I don't want to drag my feet forever.

Hm... I'm going to tell you, maybe you should join with your reservations. You're not going to be able to work them all out standing outside.

I was agnostic for a long time. I didn't ever really ask why I did or didn't believe. As a young hedonist, God, spirituality, and all those things weren't important categories. After taking an interest in the questions over the past five years or so I have concluded (based on several categories including but not limited to philosophy and personal experience) that I most definitely believe there is more to the universe than its material components. This I find easy to believe in. That being said, I seem unable to believe anything more than this. Years of unanswered prayers, a lack of spiritual experiences, etc. make it difficult to believe God, if He exists, cares about my personal spiritual path. I suppose I am a neo-Platonist, perhaps Aristotelian, deist of some sort at this point, but I always have an ear out if God wants me to take a different path.

If I may be so nosey, what makes you believe, and can you expand, the universe is more then material

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

I can't speak for him. But for me, I'd say it's simply due to the fact I desire more than material. I think that humans need a sense of comfort and happiness that transcends a purely naturalistic worldview. I never got that before I was religious. In a sense, I felt like I was denying myself, denying my own needs and desires simply because it didn't fit in with my naturalistic worldview.

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

I can't speak for him. But for me, I'd say it's simply due to the fact I desire more than material. I think that humans need a sense of comfort and happiness that transcends a purely naturalistic worldview. I never got that before I was religious. In a sense, I felt like I was denying myself, denying my own needs and desires simply because it didn't fit in with my naturalistic worldview.

I actually felt very similar through the years where I was a materialist. It was a sort of asceticism that didn't have any reward. My inner senses, "spiritual" senses if you will, kept telling me, "Check this out," or "Look how beautiful this is" and I had to keep saying, no, that's not real, because if it's real my ideology will unravel. Of course, now that I believe, I have to fight a nagging sense of atheism, but to accede to it would be to close and narrow my world, whereas my passage to belief was very much the opposite. So I feel a substantial difference between the doubts I faced as a materialist and the ones I face now.

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

Given that the question was "Why do you believe in God?" rather than "Why are you Orthodox?", I voted "personal experience" and "just believe". While I don't feel comfortable saying I have 110% unshakable, certain faith, I also don't feel "doubtful" enough to give it up. God knows many things would be easier if I didn't believe in God (and I've tried), but I can't not believe that he's "out there". I've experienced things that won't prove God to anyone, but they work well enough for me to keep me "in the game".

There are three steps there, two that are rational and one that relates to faith.

The first is that Theism makes more sense and is more rational than atheism. I believe that any person can come to that conclusion with different degrees of clarity, from a perception of a generic "divine stuff" to the more precise "God of Philosophers", in Aristotelian forms.

That would leave us with a generic divinity, not to the Triune Christian God. That is hinted in the Old Testament, but it's really a revelation we get from the life of Jesus Christ. The second rational step, then, is that there is enough historical evidence for the fact that Jesus Christ existed, that the main miracles ocurred and that He was crucified and resurrected in flesh, in history. One can learn that and still not believe, just be aware of a sheer fact.

Now, the third step is faith, trust. Faith points toward invisible things, but starts with visible ones. If this man did what He did, if He truly died and resurrected this is very serious. Enthropy itself was reversed, or, in cultural terms, death was destroyed, if the conscience that emerged on the third day is the same conscience that died on Friday, it means that it was kept above and beyond every natural law. Only that one First Cause could do that and in doing it we are revealed things we could not have assumed: it's personal, it became completely human without ceasing to be completely God. And if this God and He tells us about a Father and a Holy Spirit that we can't see, we knowing the visible Human-God, trust Him on that which we can't see. That's faith. When He promises that bread and wine *will* be His body and blood, we trust Him because of Whom we saw. When He says that there will be *one* community that will be His unbroken body, we trust Him (at least some of us do).

« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 02:30:22 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

There are three steps there, two that are rational and one that relates to faith.

The first is that Theism makes more sense and is more rational than atheism. I believe that any person can come to that conclusion with different degrees of clarity, from a perception of a generic "divine stuff" to the more precise "God of Philosophers", in Aristotelian forms.

That would leave us with a generic divinity, not to the Triune Christian God. That is hinted in the Old Testament, but it's really a revelation we get from the life of Jesus Christ. The second rational step, then, is that there is enough historical evidence for the fact that Jesus Christ existed, that the main miracles ocurred and that He was crucified and resurrected in flesh, in history. One can learn that and still not believe, just be aware of a sheer fact.

Now, the third step is faith, trust. Faith points toward invisible things, but starts with visible ones. If this man did what He did, if He truly died and resurrected this is very serious. Enthropy itself was reversed, or, in cultural terms, death was destroyed, if the conscience that emerged on the third day is the same conscience that died on Friday, it means that it was kept above and beyond every natural law. Only that one First Cause could do that and in doing it we are revealed things we could not have assumed: it's personal, it became completely human without ceasing to be completely God. And if this God and He tells us about a Father and a Holy Spirit that we can't see, we knowing the visible Human-God, trust Him on that which we can't see. That's faith. When He promises that bread and wine *will* be His body and blood, we trust Him because of Whom we saw. When He says that there will be *one* community that will be His unbroken body, we trust Him (at least some of us do).

Careful. The first two step will get you accused of being a "scholastic" or a "rationalist."

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

The best place to start when discussing anything is at the beginning which is what we will do. Scientists, even avowed atheists, struggle with why our universe appears to be so finely tuned.

I think appealing to science, and trying to prove God from DNA, dark matter, quantum physics, what-have-you, is, like, the worst apologetics of the modern age.

I'm not going to defend it, because, as I said, my thinking has changed quite a bit on issues. I will say that when I stated that scientists "struggle" with it, I meant that they seek rational explanations. I then detailed some of the explanations that have been put forth. I could similarly say that theists "struggle" to explain the problem of evil. It is a difficulty, but not necessarily one that is insurmountable.

Just to give it some background. I wrote it upon coming out of agnosticism and was very operating from a scientism based mentality, hence my discussion on science. I did not struggle as much with the philosophical concept of a God as much as how I could believe in God and still have faith in science. I did not intend to use science to prove God, but rather wished to be able to understand how the two can be compatible.

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

The best place to start when discussing anything is at the beginning which is what we will do. Scientists, even avowed atheists, struggle with why our universe appears to be so finely tuned.

I think appealing to science, and trying to prove God from DNA, dark matter, quantum physics, what-have-you, is, like, the worst apologetics of the modern age.

I'm not going to defend it, because, as I said, my thinking has changed quite a bit on issues. I will say that when I stated that scientists "struggle" with it, I meant that they seek rational explanations. I then detailed some of the explanations that have been put forth. I could similarly say that theists "struggle" to explain the problem of evil. It is a difficulty, but not necessarily one that is insurmountable.

Just to give it some background. I wrote it upon coming out of agnosticism and was very operating from a scientism based mentality, hence my discussion on science. I did not struggle as much with the philosophical concept of a God as much as how I could believe in God and still have faith in science. I did not intend to use science to prove God, but rather wished to be able to understand how the two can be compatible.

I would love to have a grasp on how science and God are compatible, I'm tottaly blind and in the dark on that subject.

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

The best place to start when discussing anything is at the beginning which is what we will do. Scientists, even avowed atheists, struggle with why our universe appears to be so finely tuned.

I think appealing to science, and trying to prove God from DNA, dark matter, quantum physics, what-have-you, is, like, the worst apologetics of the modern age.

I'm not going to defend it, because, as I said, my thinking has changed quite a bit on issues. I will say that when I stated that scientists "struggle" with it, I meant that they seek rational explanations.

No "they" don't. And who cares about the dispositions of whatever "scientist" you ask has on origins.

Science is not properly concerned with any why but rather the how. Now, in everyday parlance you can often argue how many angels you fit between the meaning of those two words, but I think a more rigorous approach to science would certainly preclude whys.

Sorry but the orientation of your very first line is entirely too loaded. It assumed too much about science and then takes up some scientific chronology as the proper field for the discussion of origin.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Have I mentioned that my building is named John Paul II and it's near "Bosque do Papa" (Pope Woods), a city park formerly marking Polish immigration and renamed after the visit of the Pope John Paul II? They have a reproduction of traditional Polish homes there and sell a Polish dessert said to have been the Pope's favorite.

Ironic, I know.

(Just noticed they also have photos on that link from the German and Ukrainian Parks... this city really celebrates the immigrants... )

There are three steps there, two that are rational and one that relates to faith.

The first is that Theism makes more sense and is more rational than atheism. I believe that any person can come to that conclusion with different degrees of clarity, from a perception of a generic "divine stuff" to the more precise "God of Philosophers", in Aristotelian forms.

That would leave us with a generic divinity, not to the Triune Christian God. That is hinted in the Old Testament, but it's really a revelation we get from the life of Jesus Christ. The second rational step, then, is that there is enough historical evidence for the fact that Jesus Christ existed, that the main miracles ocurred and that He was crucified and resurrected in flesh, in history. One can learn that and still not believe, just be aware of a sheer fact.

Now, the third step is faith, trust. Faith points toward invisible things, but starts with visible ones. If this man did what He did, if He truly died and resurrected this is very serious. Enthropy itself was reversed, or, in cultural terms, death was destroyed, if the conscience that emerged on the third day is the same conscience that died on Friday, it means that it was kept above and beyond every natural law. Only that one First Cause could do that and in doing it we are revealed things we could not have assumed: it's personal, it became completely human without ceasing to be completely God. And if this God and He tells us about a Father and a Holy Spirit that we can't see, we knowing the visible Human-God, trust Him on that which we can't see. That's faith. When He promises that bread and wine *will* be His body and blood, we trust Him because of Whom we saw. When He says that there will be *one* community that will be His unbroken body, we trust Him (at least some of us do).

Careful. The first two step will get you accused of being a "scholastic" or a "rationalist."

« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 05:46:21 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Given that the question was "Why do you believe in God?" rather than "Why are you Orthodox?", I voted "personal experience" and "just believe". While I don't feel comfortable saying I have 110% unshakable, certain faith, I also don't feel "doubtful" enough to give it up. God knows many things would be easier if I didn't believe in God (and I've tried), but I can't not believe that he's "out there". I've experienced things that won't prove God to anyone, but they work well enough for me to keep me "in the game".

This is the closest to how I feel, with minor differences. I've never tried to not believe (although I have considered what it would be like if I didn't). The last sentence in particular sums it up well for me. As an aside- can anyone have 110% unshakable, certain faith? I don't know. I don't think that's the nature of the game.

Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14

This is the closest to how I feel, with minor differences. I've never tried to not believe (although I have considered what it would be like if I didn't). The last sentence in particular sums it up well for me. As an aside- can anyone have 110% unshakable, certain faith? I don't know. I don't think that's the nature of the game.

For doubters like me anyway, a major obstacle is when you try to balance faith and doubt but the doubts outweigh the faith. It then becomes a thing where you have to decide whether to just go on and ignore your doubts, or deal with them and most likely backslide. Fwiw I find posts like yours and mors the most helpful in this regard.

I've never tried to not believe (although I have considered what it would be like if I didn't). The last sentence in particular sums it up well for me. As an aside- can anyone have 110% unshakable, certain faith? I don't know. I don't think that's the nature of the game.

I probably should clarify what I meant by "trying". It's more accurate to say that not only did I consider what life would be like if I didn't believe, but also found myself living at times as if I didn't. I didn't intentionally set out to live that way, it just happened based on what was going on in my life, and I kept it going. But even then, I couldn't really "say goodbye" to God...no matter what, something about that did not make sense. So I struggle with not having enough faith to consider myself, in my own estimation, a "true believer", but also not having enough faith in the opposite to give it all up.

I find consolation in Jesus' healing of the woman with the issue of blood. She didn't get all up in his face and cry for a miracle. She didn't grab his arm or leg. She held on to the fringe of his garment, believing that that would be enough to save her. And he saved her not with his touch, with his glance, with his words, with his saliva, etc., but he saved her with the same fringe of his garment. If he can do that for her with such a peripheral involvement, maybe there's hope for us who struggle, even if the goal is to enter more deeply into a relationship with God.

I dug up my old writing on my belief in God that I wrote after returning to Christianity from a stint as an agnostic. I didn't realize it was this long, but if anyone is interested, I posted it here. I will note that it is not written from an Orthodox perspective as Orthodoxy was not even on my radar at the time, so my views on some things have changed quite significantly.

The best place to start when discussing anything is at the beginning which is what we will do. Scientists, even avowed atheists, struggle with why our universe appears to be so finely tuned.

I think appealing to science, and trying to prove God from DNA, dark matter, quantum physics, what-have-you, is, like, the worst apologetics of the modern age.

I'm not going to defend it, because, as I said, my thinking has changed quite a bit on issues. I will say that when I stated that scientists "struggle" with it, I meant that they seek rational explanations. I then detailed some of the explanations that have been put forth. I could similarly say that theists "struggle" to explain the problem of evil. It is a difficulty, but not necessarily one that is insurmountable.

Just to give it some background. I wrote it upon coming out of agnosticism and was very operating from a scientism based mentality, hence my discussion on science. I did not struggle as much with the philosophical concept of a God as much as how I could believe in God and still have faith in science. I did not intend to use science to prove God, but rather wished to be able to understand how the two can be compatible.

I don`t understand why some people think this is the worst apologetics of modern age. Reading how physicists like Nima Arkani-Hamed have tried to explain the fine tuning : " If there are huge numbers of universes, perhaps 10 to the 500th power by one estimate, then it is no great stretch to imagine that at least one of them—ours—wound up having extremely small amounts of observed vacuum energy and a weak force that operates on a scale much smaller than expected ", certainly strengthened my belief in God. There is no competition between one God and 10^500 gods.

What is the purpose of keeping the environment pure, or having children, or of caring about the rich and poor if there is no god?

The "Supreme Good" in Philosophy is God. If God doesn't exist there isn't a basis for a "Supreme Good" or a "Moral High ground". My morality wouldn't hold any more water than the morality of bin Laden, Hitler, Charles Manson or anything or anybody else.

These debates, or thoughts or things humanity conceives wouldn't matter if there isn't any basis upholding them. Morality exists because men uphold it, and because God upholds it. If God didn't uphold morality, men have no reason to. If men didn't uphold morality, there would be no mankind.

Logged

Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

If I may be so nosey, what makes you believe, and can you expand, the universe is more then material

Sorry it took me so long to reply. Each of my reasons are complex and required reding a good number of books to be convinced, but I believe that the movement in the universe requires a first, unmoved mover. Further, I don't believe that the universe is eternal in that I am convinced by the argument that a temporal infininte, extending forever into the past, is impossible. Then there is morality. I believe there are things that are right or wrong regardless of my own opinion, but I also acknowledge that these things would have no binding authority unless there was some supreme Law or Authority of sorts.

These reasons don't get me all the way to Christ, but they do lead me to profess that there is a transcendent, immaterial power. As for why I believe in Christ, the biggest reason is that, no matter how hard I try, I can't stop believing in Him.